Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Darbar Exports and ors. Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)190; 104(2003)DLT174; 2003(68)DRJ1

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Cril. Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) is directed against an order dated 31.5.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi by which an application of the petitioners for recall of the summons issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was declined and notice under Section 251 of the Code was ordered to be served upon the petitioners. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records. 3. The petitioner No. 1 a partnership firm and its partners petitioners No. 2 and 3 are being proceeded against under Section 138 of the Act on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 1. The petitioners moved an application for recall of the summoning order mainly on the ground that no notice under Section 138(b) of the Act was served upon the petitioners; that there was no...

Mrs. Sushma Banga Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)429; 2003(70)DRJ220

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as a TGT on 26.7.1969 in the respondent No. 5-School. She was a post-graduate in History. In 1986, she was the senior most Domestic Science teacher serving with the school. A post of TGT (History) fell vacant in the school in 1986. In terms of the Circular dated 21.4.1970 issued by the Directorate of Education to all the Managers and Principals of the schools regarding selection/promotion of principals and teachers, it was directed that all the posts in aided schools will be considered as non-selection posts and if any post in the higher grade fell vacant and a teacher having required qualification was available in the same school, senior most teacher be promoted to this higher post. For such promotion, the work of the teacher should be satisfactory as per the inspection report of the last two years and confidential record should be good and the teacher should have three years teaching experience in his grade. It was observed in the Circular ...

Smt. Gurbux Kaur and Smt. Gurdev Kaur Vs. Shri Hari Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT560; 2003(68)DRJ278

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In Suit No. 2392 of 1996 the Plaintiff is the daughter of late Sardar Kundan Singh who died on 17.8.1981 and in Suit No. 2418 of 1996 the Plaintiff is the daughter of late Sardar Polo Singh who is stated to have died on 4.11.1997. The parties are cousins of each other. The prayer in Suit No. 2392/96 is for the passing of a decree declaring the dissolution of the sundry partnership firm, in which Plaintiff's father was a partner, for the rendition of accounts thereof, and for possession of immovable properties in which Plaintiff's father held a share. In Suit No. 2418/96 the prayers are essentially the same and so far as the facts are concerned the difference is that the claim is in respect of the estate of Sardar Polo Singh. 2. It appears that the Defendants herein had fired the first salvo in the shape of probate petitions in which they had propounded Wills allegedly executed by late Sardar Kundan Singh and late Sardar Polo Singh in their favor. These probate peti...

Deepa Tracy Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)249; 104(2003)DLT378; 2003(68)DRJ70; 2003(2)JCC625

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 577/01 registered at P.S. Tilak Marg under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC. 2. The said FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India alleging that Western Cooperative Bank Limited, of which the petitioner is one of the Directors, had issued Bank Guarantees to the tune of Rs. 14 crores 73 lacs in its favor between the period 5.10.1999 to 27.6.2000. However, when the complainant Prasar Bharti invoked the said Bank guarantees and presented the same to the Bank for encashment, the same were not honoured by the Bank. It was alleged that certain feature films and programmes were allowed to be telecast by Prasar Bharti on the strength of the said Bank Guarantees and had Prasar Bharti known that the said Bank Guarantees would not be honoured, it would not have allowed the telecast of the films and programmes. It was also stated that the Chairman, Managing Directo...

Subham Goodwill (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC377(Del); 2004(1)RAJ377

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking direction against first respondent namely, Commissioner of Customs, Hand Container Depot, Tuglakabad, New Delhi to release its consignment and to permit the petitioner to remove the said consignment from customs without let or hindrance. The direction is also sought against first respondent to compensate the petitioner all the moneys paid by the petitioner towards demurrages or ground rent to NLS Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd., and/or to the Container Corporation of India and/or any other person for any other charges whatsoever arising from the delay in releasing the consignment to the petitioner. 2. As would be clear from the prayer clause, the petitioner has imported certain goods, but as the respondent No. 1 did not clear the same this petition has been filed with aforesaid prayers. The facts which emerge from the petition and counter-affidavits of the respondents may be recapitulated. 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. and anr. (In Li ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)580; 104(2003)DLT580; 2003(68)DRJ310

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This revision petition Along with CM 2642/99 is filed by the petitioner, Delhi Development Authority(hereinafter referred to as `the DDA') against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 2nd November, 1996, passed in PPA613/95. The aforesaid judgment was passed in an appeal, preferred by respondent No.1 herein, i.e., Ganga Automobiles Limited against an eviction order dated 21st March, 1994, passed by the Estate Officer, directing the eviction of the respondent No.1, Ganga Automobiles Limited which is now in liquidation and is represented by the OL's counsel, Shri S.K. Luthra.2. The sole reason given by the ADJ in the aforesaid judgment for allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Company against the eviction order dated 21st March, 1994 is that the provisions of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as `the Act') were not followed inasmuch as the Notice dated 12th March, 1990 was not accomp...

Ms. Mathews Clare Georgina Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ4060; 104(2003)DLT422; 2003(68)DRJ646; 2003(88)ECC116; 2003(2)JCC634

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) is for grant of bail to the petitioner in Crl. Complaint No. 59/2002 filed by Narcotics Control Bureau under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only).2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The case against the petitioner, briefly stated, is that on 10.1.2002 the petitioner booked a parcel with a Courier Sterling International which was addressed to one Mrs. Brooks of London U.K.. The Airway Bill was filled up by the petitioner herself. The Couriers entertained some suspicion and as such reported the matter to NCB. The officials of NCB checked the parcel and found that it was containing two bronze statues which could be opened from the bottom. On opening these statues were found containing Hashish weighing about 1125 gm. Under the advice of the NCB officials...

Ripan Wadhwa Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ477; 2003(26)PTC511(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this Order, I shall dispose off the Defendant's/Judgment Debtor's application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.2.1996 (IA No. 10507/01); application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application (IA No. 10508/01) and application under Section 151 of the CPC for stay of execution proceedings (IA No. 10509/01). 2. This Suit for permanent injunction restraining passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, deliver up, etc. was filed in 1994. Summons/notices were dispatched in August, 1994 and were served in that very month, both by registered A.D. post as well as through the Baliff. On the second date of hearing, i.e. on 1.1.1994, the Defendant was represented by counsel who also appeared on 29.11.1994, 23.3.1995 and 15.9.1995. On these dates, the hearing was adjourned on the statement that the parties were endeavoring to compromise their disputes. There was no appearance on behalf of the Defendant on 27.11....

Paper Converting Machine Vs. S. Banerjee

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against order of District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi dated 5.2.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. 2935/1998 entitled Shri S. Banerjee v. M/s. Paper Converting Machine. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant for supplying one Tissue Paper Converting Machine, vide cheque No. 08115 drawn on Central Bank of India, Khan Market, New Delhi. The appellant, however failed to supply the said machine , despite personal visits and telephonic reminders. The appellant also refused to refund the amount deposited with them and as such the respondent got a legal notice served on the appellant. Since there was no response from the appellant, the respondent filed a complaint before the District For...

Jugbir Singh Vs. Dr. Manoj Sharma and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 1.2.2003, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 4036/2001 entitled Shri Jugbir Singh v. Dr. Manoj Sharma and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Jugbir Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging negligence on the part of the respondents. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was stated that the appellant was having pain in his left leg which used to increase as a result of continuous standing. It was stated that on 8.11.2000, the appellant contacted Dr. Manoj Sharma (respondent No. 1), who after examining him advised MRI Test which was got done by the appellant on 23.11.2000. It was stated that the appellant therea...